Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012?
Disney Quits Snow White Film ‘Order Of The …
Cannes Planning Surprise Screening Of Non-Fest Films; …
ReelzChannel Acquires U.S. Rights To ‘Pillars’ …
Investors Unfriend Facebook As SEC Investigates IPO …
Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ …
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On …
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them …
CNN Hits 20-Year Weekday Primetime Low
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish …
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s …
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps …
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest …
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And …
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders …
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, …
Cable Execs Warn That Dish Network’s Ad-Zapping DVR …
Put together by the group “KeepSagRelevant”, this video is hosted by Martin Sheen and includes John Heard, Clancy Brown, Connie Stevens, Terry Moore, Elliot Gould, Anne DeSalvo, Renee Taylor, Jordana Capra, Daniel Quinn, Nichelle Nichols, Bill Mumy. (And the “Vote Yes” video is here and on the SAG website).
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ... Loading ...
People forget their history … Remember when TV was “new media”? When Actors didn’t get residuals for older films (ones made prior to 1960 if I recall correctly) shown on Television?
A prime example is the THREE STOOGES – Columbia Pictures/Screen Gems made MILLION selling the film shorts to Television in the 1950′s and “The Boys” got nothing.
By voting “yes” and allowing the studios not to offer residuals and compensation for use of older material in “New Media”, it’s the same thing.
Here’s more reasons to vote no: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLPhjeYvicg
I hope that “Danny” doesn’t reveal his name because he would make some serious enemies including me. I’m not even a member of SAG, I’m a member of DGA and I really don’t want a strike, but I have to admit, that video made a lot of sense and to post such disrespectful, ignorant BS Danny, it makes me wish that somebody shits on you when you hit 60.
I also want to say that my family and I are downloading and streaming 80% of entertainment from the internet, a lot of it old classic shows or even TV shows from other countries. We have apple TV, instant netflix through x-box and just yesterday we figured out how to stream youtube and hulu on our big screen. The future has arrived. Don’t be ignorant and don’t disrespect those actors over 60 who went to the streets so that you can get a proper paycheck in the first place.
Some of already broght it up, but I will repeat it… the real issue is what is the alternative. It is understood that there are elements of this contract that aren’t ideal, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
The main contentions in this video all deal with the new-media provisions. First off, the new-media provisions of this contract sunset in two years and have to re-bargained from scrath. I understand that once anything is agreed to the producers will be reluctant to give up anything more. However, what you must realize is that the producers have already reached agreemenet on terms of new-media with every other union. That creates two problems, one the producers don’t need SAG to produce anything, they already have agreements in place that would allow them to make new-media productions (even with SAG members who are dual card holders). So, SAG would simply be leaving themselves out of the mix for the next two years. The bigger issue is that if the producers granted SAG better terms on new-media they would have to give the same terms to the unions who have previously reached agreements on their contracts, which they are not willing to do (if you fear that once SAG agrees to anything the producers won’t want to increase it later, you have to realize that the same holds for their agreements with AFTRA, WGA, DGA, etc – they arent going to yield anything to SAG that they would have to retroactively give to the other unions – and contractually the AMPTP did agree to give the best terms any union received to all unions).
Strike? Its an option, if an SAV would pass. But what would / could it accomplish? This contract will be up in less than 2 years, meaning negotiations would start in about a year and a half. It would take at least 3 months to get a strike authorization and call a strike. Does anybody really think that the producers would reopen negotiations on a contract that would expire in about year and a half when they have to prepare for the normal negotiating cycle in less than 6 months anyway? It wouldn’t be worth their time even if they were inclinded to re-negotiate with SAG which is no guarantee if the length of the current contract were 3 years. It’s just my opinion, but given reality if SAG were to go on strike they would be striking until the next round of negotaitions and they would have lost all work during that time period and would have gained nothing and still be in the same place they would have if they ratified this contract today and started preparing for negotiations in 2011.
To follow up on Harry98′s points, for most of the megacorporations that own the media companies, their media holdings are hurting a little, but doing much better than the rest of their businesses. Network TV is not bleeding nearly as badly as feared, and the theatrical business is booming. To everyone’s credit, we’ve already seen a lot of very entertaining movies at the local gigaplex this year, and some have even rocked creatively.
The moguls would sell their grandmothers’ souls before they’d admit any fear of SAG, but they do fear the big actors’ guild. That’s why they’ve consistently played the game of “let’s you and him fight”. So whether it’s the DGA v the WGA, SAG v AFTRA, or the Unite for Strength v Membership First, if they keep us at each other’s throats we don’t step back and ask what the real issues are. They know that if we quit bickering amongst ourselves, we’ll see their blatant union-busting tactics as the real problem.
Anyone who tells you new media is unprofitable or “experimental” is lying through their perfectly-capped teeth. Almost every day a fresh story emerges about how big media’s exploiting new media. Paramount didn’t exactly lose money on their Star Trek: Countdown iPhone comic book apps. Warner Brothers is bragging about having 40 iPhone apps out by next year. They’re looking into bringing cartoons to the iPhone (and presumably, Google Android and other mobile devices). That’s new media work for writers and actors that costs well under $25k/minute to produce and under the terms of the SAG offer will yield NO residuals for the voice actors.
You can bet that Disney is going to be on top of children’s apps for these devices faster than you can say Cinderella’s Road Trip, and the rest of the studios will not be far behind.
I cite these only as the most recent examples of how the moguls know and are fully exploiting new media.
Right now, because of the economy, theatrical is the moguls’ Achilles’-heel. If we turn down this deal – the wider the margin the better – many SAG members who are on the fence may well come around to voting for an SAV. As I and others have pointed out before, we need to hit the moguls the one place they feel anything – their wallets. A legitimate and credible threat to withhold our services will bring them around.
If we find the solidarity to demand full jurisdiction in all media anywhere in the universe, now extant or yet to be invented, for all eternity (love that contract language); and we demand no less than parity in compensation and residual structures between old and new media, they will be forced to give it to us.
Why? They’ll lose too much $$$ if they don’t. And they’ll be extraordinarily embarrassed after all this time, and bringing their A+ game, to have to report to their bosses that their union-busting strategy – which worked so well against the DGA and AFTRA and kind of worked on the WGA – failed against the big actors’ union. History has shown that the legitimate threat of a SAG strike can be enough to bring the other side around. If, however, an actual labor action is required, every day we walk the lines is one day closer the moguls are to being fired by their Wall Street or Japanese overlords. The clock will be ticking on them, too.
Because of all of the rollbacks the contract offer includes, Dave Clennon said we have nothing to lose by voting NO. I would add that we have much to gain by voting NO. We gain the marching orders we’ll be giving our leadership to go back to the table and do better. Much better. We’ll be giving them the first piece of ammo they need to do just that – the members’ clear rejection of what the moguls claimed to be their best offer. David White would also be carrying back with him the legitimate threat of an SAV – whether he wants it in his pocket or not.
These are all good things. We still have time to force the moguls to strip the union-busting rollbacks from the deal. We just have to vote NO.
Undecided -
Acting is a worldwide thing, yes. But work for signatories is covered under SAG’s Global Rule 1. If you want Brad Pitt or Tom (I’m a producer) Hanks, or Julia or George or Chris Pine or Dwayne Johnson, every actor on your production has to be covered by SAG’s rules. Also, the signatories agree to not make any movies outside of SAG jurisdiction.
Bystander -
It really is up to us as individuals, regardless of our opinion of this contract offer, or affected member voting, or this or that event in the guild’s recent history, to keep the debate elevated and focused on the issues. Actors are a sensitive bunch as it is. Name-calling, backbiting, questioning your fellow actor’s credits or disparaging them personally in any way is entirely counterproductive. We should be working to build solidarity, not tear each other down.
just my perspective,
this contract is mostly bathwater and very little baby.
there’s too much that is unacceptable and then the few crumbs
they’ve thrown us.
and yes, the studios DO need SAG to produce their MOTION PICTUES.
and “just my perspective” ?
it’s all about precedent.
if it gets set down on paper now, it might as well be in stone.
history shows us the studios NEVER keep their word when they say
they will revisit any issue in success.
“Some of already broght it up, but I will repeat it… the real issue is what is the alternative. It is understood that there are elements of this contract that aren’t ideal, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”
This contract does throw the baby out with the bathwater. That’s why I’m voting no. I’d kind of like to be able to make a living in ten years.
The reason no one answered my question about the alternative is because there is none. The last year SAG has been essentially ignored.
SAG fucked up people. Take the deal and then plan ahead next time. There is NO alternative.
If the deal doesn’t pass SAG will be busted by the moguls. I guarantee it.
harry98,
Two posts directed at me and yet you didn’t even come close to answering my question!
What would SAG do if the contract is voted down???
I don’t need to hear anymore on the merits of the contract good or bad (I’ve heard enough). Tell me what is the viable alternative to this contract. If you can’t answer that question, then you shouldn’t be voting no, so please someone from the no side answer this question.
Dear “Sternboy”
I’ll just assume you are genuinely interested in an answer to your question and not just another person, (not quite sure if you are a SAG member) who truly isn’t interested in an answer.
If you didn’t see it, I suggest you log onto cbsnews.com and click onto the May 22nd telecast. It was about how outstandingly well the industry is doing with regard to feature film tickets. Best year ever. This in the mist of what some like to call the worst depression ever. Isn’t that one of the major arguments by those who say “Wait until 2011. We can’t do it now because we are in the worst depression since the 30′s?” Well, just take a look at the box office numbers. Do you think the ceo’s responsible to their stockholders wants to see the end of the goose that has been laying that golden egg for quite some time? Movies are key. Forget about tv. MOVIES!!!! The ceo’s covering movies don’t want to see a strike. There is division amongst the ranks of the AMPTP. They do not want to see their slates decimated by a strike. If there is a strike, unlike tv, they can’t run to AFTRA for help. AFTRA shares a little over 44 thousand SAG members. Most are SAG only. AFTRA also publicly stated that if there were a SAG strike they would not go near features. (I know, I know. They’ve promised stuff before but…) I believe the pressure would be placed on the AMPTP by major motion picture congloms to alter the LBF offer so that our union can sign off on it. It’s all about money and no one wants to tamper with the box office. Christmas is coming sooner than we think and I’m sure there are a ton of movies being filmed or near completion right now for the latter part of 2009/early 2010 that would be shut down if we were to strike. Even if these movies pack up and move out of the country. SAG has Global Rule One. I doubt these SAG actors would go fi-core.(another myth scare tactic used by the other side). Do you think they want to risk their slates?
We have the power. We must use it. VOTE NO!!!!!!!
MHeister –
In the UK, they bring SAG actors over under SAG contracts, yes, but many of the supporting roles are filled by actors working under British Equity contracts that offer far less by way of protections and residuals.
Sternboy -
Reread my comments in this thread and the other thread about the SAG Hollywood Division informational meeting Thursday night.
Again, the alternative if we vote this down is to send David White back to the table with a clear mandate to do better. Much better. We organize, unify, and get the 75% for an SAV. We don’t want a strike, but the moguls can’t afford one either. Their overlords on Wall Street and in Tokyo are depending on media revenues because their other divisions are tanking HARD. If we show some real fortitude, we’ll get what we need to protect actors going forward and keep the union.
This ain’t gonna be easy. Very little in life that’s truly worthwhile is. But it’s what we need to do, it’s the right thing to do, and God willing, it’s what we will do.
“Sternboy”
“You” guarantee SAG will be busted by the moguls if this pig gets voted down? Really? Well, I’ll be sure to take that to the bank.
Listen – for the 800th time – it’s war. WE didn’t ask for it. All WE want is a fair contract – no more, no less. Why are we bowing and scraping, or listening to people like Sternboy (not that anyone is listening to Sternboy), when they say “what’s the plan?!” “What do you do next?!”
One step at a time.
Step 1: vote this pig down – the bigger the margin, the better.
Step 2: Do NOT play defense. THAT’S what killed us the past year, and it will CRUSH us if we allow our leaders to do it again. Which means:
Step 3: Get the SAV. Quickly. I’d like to see the national board, if this pig goes down, QUICKLY knock down the SAV requirement from 75% to 60%.
75% is RIDICULOUS. You can impeach the President of the United States with 66% and change.
SAG needs to get real with the SAV percentage.
That would be a HUGE help if done quickly.
Step 4: Get the SAV.
Step 5: Wave it in the AMPTP’s face and DON’T go in with a “compromise.” Go in TELLING THEM THE DEAL THEY NEED TO SIGN TO AVOID A STRIKE. TAKE THE FIGHT TO THEM.
IF SAG GOES IN WITH AN SAV – it should either be a very short meeting (“Here’s what we want. No? Bye.”) OR, a very long one (they give us what we need for a fair deal, point by point).
There is NO reason we should be agreeing to the clip consent, product placement or force majeure roll-backs, those STAY. AND, of course, we get a FAIR deal in new media, that puts us as quickly as possible at LEAST at parity with our residual deal in traditional media, plus the bumps in traditional media already offered.
THEN, the producers have a deal. DO NOT BE SHEEPISH. Go in and TELL THEM WANT WE’LL ACCEPT, and if they say no – do NOT fuck around – STRIKE!
Then, we see how long all SAG network TV and ALL MOVIES dead stop they can tolerate before they give us a fair deal.
The NY, RBD, UFS and USAN folks (NOT ALL) WANT SAG to fail – they SAY they’re “pro-union” but they are NOT “pro-SAG.” IF SAG accepts this deal, SAG dries up and blows away and gets sucked into the black hole of merger on AFTRA’S terms.
Everybody needs to understand, there are many people on the NY and RBD boards (not necessarily all the membership – in fact – far from it in NY) and ALL UFS and USAN who have been plugging away at killing SAG so we have to merge with AFTRA – for many years.
So – ANY NY-based SAG members reading this – PLEASE come to the NYC town hall meeting June 1st at the DGA.
NEW YORK
Monday, June 1, 2009
6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
Directors Guild of America
110 West 57th Street (between 6th & 7th Aves.) New York, New York
BRING YOUR SAG CARD!!!!!
When the “power point presentation” about “why it’s a great deal and you should vote ‘yes’” finishes, there will be a RUSH for the line, to speak at the mike. Get up close and GET on that line, as close to the front as you can, so you make SURE your voice will be heard.
Otherwise, it will be packed with mostly rabid “kill SAG, merge with AFTRA” partisans, who are going to howl at the moon – just like they did the last town meeting I attended in NYC last December – and THAT will get big media play.
WE NEED “vote NO” people at that meeting, AT the microphone, telling the crowd they are voting “no” and why, asking hard questions of sell-outs like David White (Interim NED)and John McGuire (chief negotiator) and NOT allowing them to then filibuster you and run out your speaking or comment time (ONLY 2 MINUTES)
ANY NY SAG actors who agree we need to FIGHT and strike if necessary to get a FAIR deal and keep SAG autonomous, strong and , next time FEARED at the bargaining table – you need to get there early and stay for the full meeting and MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD.
Let’s show support for the people, who, despite some mistakes, have kept SAG alive and NOT LOCKED into this shit contract – not YET. That means Alan Rosenberg (he was cheered – standing ovation in L.A. – he’ll be booed in NY – I saw it last time, let’s COUNTER THAT WITH CHEERS OF SUPPORT!
AND let’s let the people know, who want to sell us down the river on that dais – who are expecting ONLY cheers from the anti-SAG, pro-merger partisans: David White, John McGuire, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland (SAG counsel), Sam Freed (NY President) and Mike Hodge (1st NY vice president) that we do NOT support them.
You’ll hear plenty of booing and hissing at the meeting AGAINST Alan Rosenberg – the room will be bursting with anti-SAG, pro-AFTRA-merger partisans who want this contract to pass. Let’s at LEAST show them NY has a good portion of its membership that isn’t buying their bullshit.
See you there.
There will NEVER be a “next time”! We heard the same thing with BETA…then…VHS…then…DVD…then…the INTERNET… The result of waiting until “next time”?… Nothing! Nowhere! Nohow! Nada! NEVER is a long, long time. VOTE “NO” NOW or forever wait for “never”!
JB and Just My Perspective~
The alternative, at least for now, is that we work off the old contract until either the AMPTP gives us a new proposal or until 2011. It would suck to miss out on 2 years of residuals from New Media, but far worse to vote ALL residuals away for good.
Consider this, in less that 4 weeks, all television will be going digital. Networks can literally distribute television not through ABC or NBC, but rather through ABC.com or NBC.com – ie, NEW MEDIA. They can literally do away with all residuals AND use non-union actors with the contention that they are no longer distributing television as in days of yore, but rather that it is being beamed to your service provider via an internet signal. That will make null and void any of the old television contracts.
And personally, to think we just somehow “ratified” the commercials contract (interesting that SAG posted the results on 5/21/09 on the website when in fact voters had until 5pm on 5/21/09 to have their ballots POSTMARKED), I think it’s abhorred to know that the new commercials contract lacked any language that FORBIDS talent from being required to push product placement in film. Not to mention, when you consider that the internet will still be used to deliver your television, those “tv” commercial will ALSO fall under NEW MEDIA, as again your television will be delivered via ABC.com, etc.
So basically in a matter of WEEKS, we will know whether or not we still have a modicum of a future as actors or whether all of us who aren’t stars should pack it up and find something else to do in life because this contract proposal is going to literally throw us back to the 1950′s if it passes, just like Renee Taylor said that it would. We will literally NEVER be able to get our rights back if we vote them away. It’s nearly 30 years past the time in which actors allowed residuals on cable and VHS to pass them by. And we never got those back. So, this is not only going to be the most important vote of your acting career, it will also be the vote that will determine whether or not you will EVER have a career, health care, or even something to retire upon. And this goes for vested members as well, because once P&H starts to dry up, it will be gone faster than social security, which analysts are giving until roughly 2037 before it runs out. It will run out much much faster for SAG if this vote passes. In fact, the P&H will lose so much money under the contract that it will have LESS THAN FIFTEEN YEARS. Think on that. Will you be ready to retire in 15 years? Better hope so because it will be gone!!
The reason why AFTRA pulled their dirty trick? They’re losing money so fast that at this point they only have it on paper. They are 20+ years behind in extensions they have filed on monies that they owe to E.R.I.S.A, which if they don’t or didn’t find money quickly, the Federal Government could literally shut them down and liquidate the Pension & Health Fund. That’s why AFTRA sold us SAG members out and did it at the actors’ expense and allowed tv newsreporters to vote on the contract. Because they are nearly non-existant and they decided to make SAG their scapegoat. So this is our last chance. Imagine having to work under AFTRA’s crummy terms or even worse, working under SAG’s proposed contract with NON-UNION actors.
What kind of a UNION writes up proposals to allow for NON-UNION persons to work under it??? It’s ridiculous!!!!
Vote NO or say goodnight, Gracie. Thank you to the stars above who had the balls to open up their mouths and stick up for those of us who aren’t yet vested. They made this video because they know they have nothing to lose.
So where are our Georges and Toms when we need them to speak up? They are eating humble pie for wanting to make us believe this was in our best interest when they’re now realizing it will completely undo the entire union. But I guess when you’re a star, that really doesn’t matter any more, right? They can retire on the one of their many mansions. Can’t you????
“Sternboy”, nobody had to answer your question because the answer is self-evident. Since you can’t read, let me spell it out for you: it’s called “Strike Authorization Vote”. S-A-V. Clear enough?
There is no “deal” to take. There is no “agreement” that has “highlights”. It’s an offer. A really, really shitty offer. And it will die because too many people have had enough of the bullying and subversion from the Producers (the AMPTP) and from our own Interim Board Majority. The truth is out (again), and SAG members have had enough.
Thank You, to all who have the guts to stand up and fight for what is right!
Everyone needs to vote NO to this piece of toilet paper.
I am one the of the few who can claim to be third generation in this crazy business; Grandmom – wardrobe, Uncle – Teamster/stunt driver, Mom – Talent; Myself a precision/stunt driver.
My position is for all the Heirs of talent whose body of work was made prior to 1974.
Some may say that I am being selfish or greedy, but there have been times when a stray residual check from work of my Mom’s has arrived just in the nick of time to pay a late utility bill or other household exspense.
This economy is bad enough, I hate the thought that income will be lost because of a bunch a newbies who are unable to see beyond their next mani-pedi are being given and are following a ‘party-line’ instead of looking at the future. Don’t they realize that they are giving up income for the rest of thier lives, and tossing away thier childrens inheritance.
If Children are our future then the ‘yes group’ needs to have thier children removed by DCFS. Because they centainly do not give a D*** about the future of thier own children.
Thank you I will now step down from my soapbox.
While this is all going on, why doesn’t SAG do more deals with independent film companies? I understand there was a waivor offer in the past. Why not do more to give that industry a boast and put pressure on AMPTP?
Vote no. Read the contract. Attend informational meetings.
Look at the details of the deal…
The pay increases for session fees are fine.
However, the percentage increases for benefits, etc. mean nothing, if they are calculated on the new media pay rate.
It’s pointed out above: 13 weeks included in initial fee. A pathetically small fee for another 26 weeks. Then 6% pay….of what? 15% contribution to benefits….of what? $24??? That’s a good deal???
Additionally, if you look at SAG’s current newsletter (The Call Sheet), The Hollywood Board voted NO, by 72.73%. There are more people who didn’t vote, than those who voted yes. And yet, the National Board is saying to vote yes. What’s up with David White? Is he working for the AMPTP? It looks that way…
Furthermore, all we want is to be paid a percentage of the new media income – the AMPTP says that’s too much, because they don’t know how much new media will earn. BS! If they don’t make money, we don’t. Their logic is suspect, and their position is insulting.
As stated above: if they don’t have us, they don’t have anything to produce. They need to respect and value our contribution, and recognized that this is a reciprocal relationship.
Finally, in the Q&A section of The Call Sheet (pg.4), The National Board/David White totally sidesteps some questions. They’re being politicians, trying to sell us a contract that is worse than what we already have.
Again, who are they working for?
I’m voting NO, NO, NO.
scott barry,
i IMDBPro’ed you and it seems as if you are a guy who is just starting
out in the business.
we all want to work and no one WANTS to strike, but if we accept this deal
it will cripple your future as an actor.
this contract, if accepted will lead to the end of residuals and
subsequently, the end of the Health and Pension plans.
please don’t sell out your future for paltry short-term gains.
From this blog, it looks like this contract will get voted down. However, in the slightest, most remote chance that it does get passed, will all of you who voted no, work under it? Will you have the guts to defy it with the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore” bravado that seems so passionate? If it passes, and this is a big IF, would it give you enough reason to want to give up acting because you’re not being paid enough?
It takes 75% to authorize a strike vote?
Does that mean a 26% YES vote RULES?
Isn’t that a “tyranny”of the minority???
What kind of Democracy is that?
Alan Rosenberg is the most stand up guy in Hollywood today,Trust him.
Go Nikki…